News of the World hacking case
•
Page 101

Which all ignores that basic problem; if past laws not being enforced led to the issue then where in the solution is the guarantee that the new laws will be enforced?

"The restrictions on your freedom are actually increasing your freedom by freeing you from the worries of so many choices!"

I do agree that it could, theoretically, become more important than the 1st Amendment. Ying and yang.

I also wonder just how important this would all be to you personally if the last election had put your lot into power. Your championing of Labourites' opinions on the merits of new legislation to curb the kind of influence that put their arses into the seats of power from when they prevaricate is rather telling.

Khanivor wrote:
Which all ignores that basic problem; if past laws not being enforced led to the issue then where in the solution is the guarantee that the new laws will be enforced?

"The restrictions on your freedom are actually increasing your freedom by freeing you from the worries of so many choices!"

I do agree that it could, theoretically, become more important than the 1st Amendment. Ying and yang.

I also wonder just how important this would all be to you personally if the last election had put your lot into power. Your championing of Labourites' opinions on the merits of new legislation to curb the kind of influence that put their arses into the seats of power from when they prevaricate is rather telling.

The issue of whether or not existing criminal legislation is sufficient to cover and protect against sufficiently serious misbehaviour is in the remit of the seond module of the inquiry. This is not the end of the ubject and it is important to understand that the remit of the first module is largely independent of those specific extremes where misbehaviour crosses the line into the realms of criminality. The focus of the first module is specifically concerned with adressing the failures of culture and practice that result in the remit of the second module to become as widespread and commonly debated in the first place. Very important distinction there.

Regarding your point as to whether the staus quo would be deemed to be acceptable if it put "my lot", as you so succintly describe it (and perfectly with merit given the issue of press regulation has long been a central tenet of of liberal policy and my rather obvious and widely known personal views on the subject), i believe that the very definition of liberalism as a political and philosophical concept is inherently opposed to any form of state control, legislation and regulation that does not at its heart have public freedom to express and disseminate opposing views or potentially act or behave in such a way that does not directly impinge on the freedom of others to do the same insofar that either side doesn not in its own arguments risk inflaming, provoking or inciting violence upon others who do not share their views or prejudices or where they seek to undermine their rights to free expression and fair justice within the boundaries of universally accepted ethical standards of criminal law. It is one of the core distinctions between the labour party and liberals - labour have a historical tendency to force through heavy handed state regulation to influence societal behaviour in the name of liberalism (and in all fairness what i genuinely believe to be the noblest of intentions the vast majority of time), whereas liberals take much softer slowly-slowly-catchy-monkey approach that actively avoids state intervention if it can be avoided whilst achieving the same goal and at the same time protecting the ideals expressed above without it. And even if it is apparent legislation is the only way forward on certain issues, we tend to advocate the least intrusive way forward that will allow us to accomplish our aims of a free and fair and equal (as far as is naturally possible) society without actually creating new limits to freedom. It's also important to note there that liberals themselves may hold personal views which could be deemed to be incompatible with the spirit of political liberalism, there are historically internal checks and balances within the makeup of the party that prevent those imbalances from becoming party policy without genuinely democratic mandate within the same strict principles. In other words, we tend, on the whole and as a collective, to practice what we preach whilst also recognising the validity and rights of someone to hold contrary opinions. This of course is leaving aside the unusual situation of compromise resulting from the almost unique in the uk situation we are currently in of coalition government, which in and of itself results in a huge variety of debate and opinion internall amongst liberals about acceptable sacrifices. So bearing those points in mind and answering your question, yes I do still think we wold be in this situation and endorsing these findings if the stauts quo contributed towards putting us in sole power in the first place (but in reality this is largely irrelevant to the matter at hand being as it is purely speculative).

Nice to see you accept that the leveson recommendation regarding enshrining press freedom could be just as if not more important than the 1st amendment. That, in my opinion, is crucial in addressing the slippery slope arguments against statutory underpinning (which do have some merit whether or not I agree with the details of how those arguments are arrived at by certain people). Or, to echo cleggykins and give him a biscuit treat, it is a necessary part of a democratic process to debate and consider all angles of argument and opinion in order to ensure that legislature is balanced and proportionate - which I believe Leveson's recommendations satisfy. These are not by any means new lines of argument that he sets out (though his rather impressively tidy way of balancing them all together in one place is close to a political miracle considering the complexity of the task he was given).

Lastly, to wrap this up before it crosses the borderline of turning and lengthy post into a full blown essay (and i accept it is very much on that borderline), I refer you to my previous points on the last page as to why leveson's recommendations do not, at all, represent a limitation on the freedom of the press but actually their enhancement (you seem to have broadly accepted that above), but are also necessary in order to ensure that this does not continue to be an endlessly debated issue that ultimately leads to even more innocent victims and ultimately ends up leading to a fundamental, irreperable collapse in public comfidence in the entire establishment and the efficacy of democracy itself to protect the public good, which is ironically (and i maintain knowingly hypocritically) cited by the press as the unavoidable zero-sum result of any form of legislative underpinning simply by virtue of being underpinned in law. Leveson has today demonstrated in his findings a way that strikes, for possibly the first time, a perfect balance that actually satisfies all sides of the debate. I would go so far as to say that it is to the issue of press regulation and independence what a definitive answer to the west lothian question would be in terms of historical importance, whether or not it gets implemented in full.

I maintain it was necessary to address the anti-statute concerns of Khani though without possibly being exhaustive.

Hell, Leveson's findings on just this half of the inquiry are two thousand pages long (even his executive summary is 48 pages long across roughly 300 paragraphs). In comparison to that my post is practically a footnote .

I sort of dread the final page count of the whole process after the conclusion and publication of the findings of module 2. I heavily suspect that the module 2 report will actually be significantly longer than this one.

It genuinely wouldn't surprise me if the complete findings of the entire process, including executive summaries, breaches the 10,000 page mark.

Which is going to be painful for my printer. I just hope there is some option to have the full report physically delivered to you in physical form in a single delivery by courier or something - which given the propensity for stuff like this to become standard legal reading wouldn't surprise me, even if it ends up costing around £50 - would still be cheaper tha printing the lot off.

Bremenacht wrote:
The police have got off scott-free yet again. Levenson found no evidence of corruption, and Operation Elveden has resulted in prosecutions, but not against Police on the take. Are there any enquiries left that could affect them?

Individual officers have been arrested and charged as part of Elveden (or one of the other related operations). This report just says there was no evidence of force wide corruption.

Khanivor wrote:
Which all ignores that basic problem; if past laws not being enforced led to the issue then where in the solution is the guarantee that the new laws will be enforced?

"The restrictions on your freedom are actually increasing your freedom by freeing you from the worries of so many choices!"

I do agree that it could, theoretically, become more important than the 1st Amendment. Ying and yang.

I also wonder just how important this would all be to you personally if the last election had put your lot into power. Your championing of Labourites' opinions on the merits of new legislation to curb the kind of influence that put their arses into the seats of power from when they prevaricate is rather telling.

The issue of whether or not existing criminal legislation is sufficient to cover and protect against sufficiently serious misbehaviour is in the remit of the seond module of the inquiry. This is not the end of the ubject and it is important to understand that the remit of the first module is largely independent of those specific extremes where misbehaviour crosses the line into the realms of criminality. The focus of the first module is specifically concerned with adressing the failures of culture and practice that result in the remit of the second module to become as widespread and commonly debated in the first place. Very important distinction there.

Regarding your point as to whether the staus quo would be deemed to be acceptable if it put "my lot", as you so succintly describe it (and perfectly with merit given the issue of press regulation has long been a central tenet of of liberal policy and my rather obvious and widely known personal views on the subject), i believe that the very definition of liberalism as a political and philosophical concept is inherently opposed to any form of state control, legislation and regulation that does not at its heart have public freedom to express and disseminate opposing views or potentially act or behave in such a way that does not directly impinge on the freedom of others to do the same insofar that either side doesn not in its own arguments risk inflaming, provoking or inciting violence upon others who do not share their views or prejudices or where they seek to undermine their rights to free expression and fair justice within the boundaries of universally accepted ethical standards of criminal law. It is one of the core distinctions between the labour party and liberals - labour have a historical tendency to force through heavy handed state regulation to influence societal behaviour in the name of liberalism (and in all fairness what i genuinely believe to be the noblest of intentions the vast majority of time), whereas liberals take much softer slowly-slowly-catchy-monkey approach that actively avoids state intervention if it can be avoided whilst achieving the same goal and at the same time protecting the ideals expressed above without it. And even if it is apparent legislation is the only way forward on certain issues, we tend to advocate the least intrusive way forward that will allow us to accomplish our aims of a free and fair and equal (as far as is naturally possible) society without actually creating new limits to freedom. It's also important to note there that liberals themselves may hold personal views which could be deemed to be incompatible with the spirit of political liberalism, there are historically internal checks and balances within the makeup of the party that prevent those imbalances from becoming party policy without genuinely democratic mandate within the same strict principles. In other words, we tend, on the whole and as a collective, to practice what we preach whilst also recognising the validity and rights of someone to hold contrary opinions. This of course is leaving aside the unusual situation of compromise resulting from the almost unique in the uk situation we are currently in of coalition government, which in and of itself results in a huge variety of debate and opinion internall amongst liberals about acceptable sacrifices. So bearing those points in mind and answering your question, yes I do still think we wold be in this situation and endorsing these findings if the stauts quo contributed towards putting us in sole power in the first place (but in reality this is largely irrelevant to the matter at hand being as it is purely speculative).

Nice to see you accept that the leveson recommendation regarding enshrining press freedom could be just as if not more important than the 1st amendment. That, in my opinion, is crucial in addressing the slippery slope arguments against statutory underpinning (which do have some merit whether or not I agree with the details of how those arguments are arrived at by certain people). Or, to echo cleggykins and give him a biscuit treat, it is a necessary part of a democratic process to debate and consider all angles of argument and opinion in order to ensure that legislature is balanced and proportionate - which I believe Leveson's recommendations satisfy. These are not by any means new lines of argument that he sets out (though his rather impressively tidy way of balancing them all together in one place is close to a political miracle considering the complexity of the task he was given).

Lastly, to wrap this up before it crosses the borderline of turning and lengthy post into a full blown essay (and i accept it is very much on that borderline), I refer you to my previous points on the last page as to why leveson's recommendations do not, at all, represent a limitation on the freedom of the press but actually their enhancement (you seem to have broadly accepted that above), but are also necessary in order to ensure that this does not continue to be an endlessly debated issue that ultimately leads to even more innocent victims and ultimately ends up leading to a fundamental, irreperable collapse in public comfidence in the entire establishment and the efficacy of democracy itself to protect the public good, which is ironically (and i maintain knowingly hypocritically) cited by the press as the unavoidable zero-sum result of any form of legislative underpinning simply by virtue of being underpinned in law. Leveson has today demonstrated in his findings a way that strikes, for possibly the first time, a perfect balance that actually satisfies all sides of the debate. I would go so far as to say that it is to the issue of press regulation and independence what a definitive answer to the west lothian question would be in terms of historical importance, whether or not it gets implemented in full.

You make some good points, it's a subject I've had deep thoughts on too.

I observe there are sorts of people who are willing to promote a general License, and very studious to defend it; but 'tis plain they are such as promote Principles in Argument, which they can but very sorrily defend; and flattering themselves, from what Grounds I believe they themselves hardly know; that they may obtain a Licenser to their Advantage, they suppose from thence a liberty to obtrude their preposterous Notions upon the World, and by favour of a Law and an Arbitrary Licenser, partial to their own Factions, suppress the possibility of a reply.

These people are in the right to desire such a thing, as a Licenser; for false and designing Reasoning, requires the support of Power to defend it from the invincible force of Truth and Demonstration.

But methinks they should be able to see that the present Government is not so suited to those Principles, as that they should expect: so Arbitrary and unjustifiable an Office should be erected, after so many Years being laid side.

The People of England do not believe the Parliament will make a Law to abridge them of that Liberty they should protest, for tho' it were more true than it is, that the Exorbitances of the Press ought to be restrain'd, yet I cannot see how the supervising, and passing all the Works of the Learned part of the World by one or a few Men, and giving them an absolute Negative on the Press, can possibly be reconcil'd to the liberty of the English Nation.

Laws are often made against Fa£ls not in them­selves unlawful, but as Convenience and Reason of State requires, and Circumstances may make a thing unfit to be allow'd in a Country, which would otherwise be no Crime; but in these Cases such Laws are enforc'd by a Penalty, and he that will suffer the Penalty, is always at Liberty to commit the Crime.

But in this case a Man is abridg'd of his Liberty, and must not do this or that, whether it Transgresses the Law or no. For Example, a person having Writ a Book, brings it to one or other Licenser, the Law is not express that such a Book shall not appear in the World, there is no Crime committed, but the Book shall be Damn'd in its Womb, not because any thing in it is offensive to the Government, Irreligious, Blasphemous, or any other way Criminal, not because 'tis a Book unfit to appear, but because Mr. Licenser does not please to like it.

I know no Nation in the World, whose Government is not perfectly Despotick, that ever makes preventive Laws, 'tis enough to make Laws to punish Crimes when they are committed, and not to put it in the power of any single Man, on pretence of preventing Offences to commit worse.

Even the Laws against Theft and Murther, do not say they shall not commit the Crime, but if they do, they shall be so and so punish'd. 'Tis for the Commands of God to say, Thou shat not do this or that, Kill, Steal, commit Adultery, and the like; but Man can only say, if any Man shall wilfully do this, or that, commit this or that Crime, he shall suffer such or such Pains, and Penalties; and some are of opinion, all men have a Native right, as to Human Liberty, to commit any Fact, if they submit to the penalty which the Law inflicts; for as to its being a sin against God, the Laws have nothing to say to that, and as to a sin against Civil Government, there can be no such thing as a Crime till the Fact is committed, and therefore to anticipate the Man by Laws, before the Crime, is to abridge him of his Liberty without a Crime, and so make a Punishment without a Transgression, which is illegal in its own Nature, and Arbitrary in the most intense degree.

The honorable gentleman makes a diplomatically handled criticism of my propensity in my previous passage to overuse grandiose terminology that is as likely to obscure my argument as it is to clarify how my position should be interpreted as to my intent of conveyance.

He additionally makes a considerable and reasoned response to my personal findings of opinion that have their own merits and should be considered in an attempt to find a satisfactory compromise that appeases both views.

However I cannot help but suggest that by quoting in entirety such an admittedly lengthy post in order to rebut it and make his point about overwrought oratory on the very same page as the post in question, he has sort of fucked up this page of the thread.

Bremenacht wrote:
The police have got off scott-free yet again. Levenson found no evidence of corruption, and Operation Elveden has resulted in prosecutions, but not against Police on the take. Are there any enquiries left that could affect them?

Individual officers have been arrested and charged as part of Elveden (or one of the other related operations). This report just says there was no evidence of force wide corruption.

Yeah, it wasnt saying there was no corruption amongst specific individuals, just that thankfully the corruption wasnt insitutional

Editors have been seeking the power to license journalists by ensuring that only people they approve can have press cards.

So what they are suggesting is that the people who run the newspapers are trying to have a say in who gets to work for them? For realz? Wow. That reminds me of the story about nuclear power plant operators only wanting to have people they approve of in charge of plant safety.

It misses the possibly more important point that the organisations making the biggest noise opposing statutory underpinning or outside regulation all rapidly signed, without any complaint, their agreement to adhere to the much more restrictive Irish model of regulation.

There is also something to be said that people seeking to get away with wrong doing scot-free are actually even more liable to make the most sound and fury and further mislead people than someone who is innocent and trying to get to the truth.

News International {The Sun}, Associated Newspapers {Daily Mail} and the Telegraph Media Group {The Telegraph} want to Boycott whatever body the government set-up. Can I dream that they stick to their guns then get shut down

I don't quite get what Cameron gets out of this inevitable defeat?
I mean, he obviously got told to take this line, probably while receiving a series of long penis based strokes, with a hair grab and a hard thrust occasionally, for emphasis.

So, he must have steeled himself and set himself up for the fall because he had no (or little) choice? Or because he is a big scaredy cat and didn't feel strong enough to fight?
Either way- weak.